Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Organic Farmers Pay the Price for Contamination

Organic Farmers Pay the Price for Contamination

Ratings: (0)|Views: 279 |Likes:
Published by Food and Water Watch
Until GMOs were introduced as a production method for U.S. farmers, "coexistence" between different sectors of agriculture was a fairly simple prospect.
Until GMOs were introduced as a production method for U.S. farmers, "coexistence" between different sectors of agriculture was a fairly simple prospect.

More info:

Published by: Food and Water Watch on Feb 28, 2014
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Flag for inappropriate content|Add to collection
See more
See less

08/02/2014

pdf

text

original

 
U
ntil genetically engineered crops (also described as GMOs) were introduced as a production method for U.S. farmers, “coexistence” between different sectors of agriculture was a fairly simple prospect. Today, the ability of organic, non-GMO or identity-preserved production to coexist with GMO production is in question.
GMO crops became commercially available in he Unied Saes in 1996 and now consiue he vas majoriy o corn, coton and soybean crops grown in he counry.
1
 U.S. GMO culivaion grew rapidly rom only 7 percen o soybean acres and 1 percen o corn acres in 1996, o 93 percen o soybean and 90 percen o corn acres in 2013.
2
 Ceriiable organic crops canno be grown rom GMO seeds.The hrea and acual occurrence o conaminaion o non-GMO crops by GMO crops harms many paricipans in markes where no deecable GMO presence is required or expeced, including organic and non-GMO (ofen described as “ideniy preserved”). The opic o coexisence becomes even more complicaed because organic and non-GMO armers are aking a variey o precauionary measures o ry o proec hemselves rom conaminaion and mainain heir abiliy o sell ino speciic markes, while GMO growers are no speciically required o miigae he risk o conaminaion. Food & Waer Wach parnered wih he Organic Farmers’ Agency or Relaionship Markeing (OFARM) o survey or-ganic grain producers on prevenaive measures ha hey use o avoid GMO conaminaion and he inancial losses associ-aed wih conaminaion.Survey indings include:
Nearly hal o respondens were skepical ha GMO and non-GMO crop producion could coexis.
        
enough o proec organic and non-GMO armers rom conaminaion.
    
ORGANIC FARMERS PAY THE PRICE FOR
GMO CONTAMINATION
 
2
        
GMO conaminaion impacing heir arm, wih 60 percen saying ha hey were exremely concerned.
         
conaminaion on heir arm. O hose conaminaed arm-ers, over hal have been rejeced by heir buyers or ha reason. They repored a median cos o a rejeced semi load (approximaely 1,000 bushels) o $4,500.
        
insurance unless legally required o do so o cover losses associaed wih GMO conaminaion. And o hose who would purchase insurance, hree ou o our repored ha GMO paen holders, GMO users or boh o hose eniies should bear he liabiliy burden or any economic loss as-sociaed wih GMO conaminaion.The resuls o his survey reveal ha he risks and he effecs o GMO conaminaion have unairly burdened organic and non-GMO armers wih exra work, longer hours and inancial insecuriy, which has led o general skepicism abou coexis-ence wihin he organic communiy. The U.S. Deparmen o Agriculure’s ocus on coexisence is misplaced. Recommendaions by a USDA panel, he Advisory Commitee on Bioechnology and 21s Cenury Agriculure, ail o poin he deparmen in he righ direcion. The AC21 commitee claimed ha here is insufficien daa o deermine i conaminaion is occurring. And he commitee’s approach o responding o conaminaion was based on crop insurance purchased by organic and non-GMO crop producers, while is approach or prevening conaminaion relied on encourag-ing GMO crop producers o use good sewardship pracices and o communicae wih heir neighbors. These approaches are inadequae and, as he resuls o his survey indicae, are unaccepable o mos organic producers.Insead o an exended discussion o coexisence, he USDA mus recognize he harm ha is already being done o organic and non-GMO armers and prioriize ways o preven conaminaion.
Paths of Contamination
  
Gene low is a naural process ha osers biological diversiy in a plan populaion by shuffling geneic inormaion rom he pollen or seeds o closely re-laed individuals.
7
 In crops o he same species, GMO crops can “oucross” or “cross-pollinae” non-GMO crops hrough wind dispersal or pollinaors.
8
 Some sel-pollinaing crops can sill be cross-pollinaed, like canola, which can oucross wih nearby plans up o a requency o 55 percen.
9
 
Afer a crop is harvesed, here are several seps dur-ing which GMO and non-GMO seeds or grains can become mixed. This can happen during handling or ranspor i machinery is no properly cleaned, or due o a qualiy-conrol ailure or human error during sorage or processing.
10
 
 
3
Food & Waer Wach and OFARM recommend ha:
       
should be held accounable or all losses associaed wih GMO conaminaion and pay ino a compensaion und o help armers recover he ull coss o heir economic hard-ship caused by conaminaion.
       
-ship requiremens or GMO crop producion o ensure ha responsibiliy or prevening conaminaion is shared, raher han resing solely on organic and non-GMO producers. These requiremens should include buffer zones or GMO crop ields ha adjoin organic and non-GMO crop ields o reduce GMO and chemical drif. This is especially impor-an in ligh o he pending approval o crops engineered o olerae herbicides such as 2,4-D ha are prone o drif.
       
and analyzing incidences o conaminaion and associaed economic losses a all levels o he supply chain.
       
service o help educae GMO, non-GMO and organic arm-ers abou his escalaing problem and how o bes avoid conaminaion problems.
Introduction
In 2011, he U.S. Deparmen o Agriculure convened he Advisory Commitee on Bioechnology and 21s Cenury Agriculure (AC21) o address he issue o he easibiliy o coexisence in agriculure. Heavily weighed wih bioech proponens, he commitee gahered or a series o meeings in 2011 and 2012 wih he ask o esablishing a proocol or coexisence and designing a compensaion mechanism or armers ha are economically harmed by conaminaion rom GMO crops.
3
Unorunaely, he commitee was unable o esimae he coss associaed wih GMO presence on non-GMO and or-ganic arms due o a lack o daa. Their inal suggesion or a compensaion mechanism was a orm o crop insurance ha included, in one proposal, a premium o be paid by producers o non-GMO crops.
4
 The inancial burden associaed wih conaminaion and e-ors o preven conaminaion are signiican. Some o he coss o armers rom conaminaion include loss o access o markes ha require no GMO presence, and long-erm inves-mens associaed wih producing a crop inended or a non-GMO or organic marke, such as organic ceriicaion.
Methodology
In an effor o ill he daa gap ha was used o jusiy an inadequae policy recommendaion by he AC21, Food & Waer Wach and OFARM gahered inormaion rom organic producers and co-op managers on coexisence and GMO conaminaion. We sen a survey o 1,500 armers, ideniied as ceriied organic ield crop producers. Many o hese pro-ducers use he markeing assisance services o he OFARM member co-ops. The survey atemped o quaniy some o he coss associaed wih prevenive measures aken by armers o keep GMO presence off heir arm, he inancial burden o arm-level GMO presence and how GMO presence affecs co-op managers.Ou o he 1,500 surveys sen ou, 87 were sen back or vari-ous reasons. O he 1,413 remaining, we received a 19 percen response rae o 268 responses. Farmers who paricipaed in he survey hail rom 17 saes, predominanly in he Midwes, and grow a wide variey o organic specialy crops and organic ield crops. 
Do you think good stewardship is enough to protect organic/non-GMO farmers from unintended GMO contamination?
Inadequate (31%)Very inadequate (37%)Blank (1%)Very adequate (4%)Adequate (15%)Neutral (13%)
How concerned are you about GMO
   
Very concerned (59%)Concerned (59%)Neutral (6%)Not concerned (6%)Not concernedat all (4%)Blank (0.4%)

Activity (2)

Filters
Add to collectionReview Add NoteLike
Showing
AllMost RecentReviewsAll NotesLikes
You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
Rating 0/5
Post notePost reviewPost replyPost note and like
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Load more

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->